Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 58 references

The new compact triple system: discovery of bright third star around contact binary using LAMOST-MRS spectra and photometry

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read J04+25 is a hierarchical triple system in which the third star is brighter than the inner contact binary and orbits it in about 941 days.

desk verdict A solid triple-system discovery with a clever spectral method, but the O-C timing errors are unrealistically small and the quoted outer-orbit precision is not yet credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21287 v1 pith:VWZAIU7V submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Mikhail Kovalev , Azizbek Matekov , Sufen Guo , Xuefei Chen , Zhanwen Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords hierarchicaltriplestarscontactbinarieslight-travel-timeeffectradialvelocitieseclipsingstellarmassesspectraldecompositionO-Cdiagram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the known contact eclipsing binary J04+25 is actually a compact hierarchical triple: a third star that outshines the inner contact pair orbits it every 941 days. This matters because a bright third component distorts single-star and binary measurements, and here it dominates the spectrum while being invisible in direct imaging. The authors recover radial velocities of all three stars from blended medium-resolution spectra, then show that the third star's radial-velocity orbit and the light-travel-time wobble in the eclipse-minimum times independently agree. A joint fit pins down the outer period, eccentricity, and projected masses, and the same data yield an empirical way to estimate contact-binary periods and minimal masses from $V\sin i$ variations alone.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the joint fit of two complementary observables: the radial velocities of the narrow-lined third star (a single-lined Keplerian orbit) and the light-travel-time effect in the eclipse-minimum times, modeled with a Keplerian O\,--\,C curve. The enabling step is the iterative two-stage spectral decomposition: the bright third-star spectrum is fit and subtracted first, then the residual contact-binary spectrum is re-fit, which yields radial velocities for all three components from blended spectra. Template matching against a Wilson\,--\,Devinney 'toy' light-curve model provides the eclipse-minimum times, and an MCMC sampler produces the joint orbit.

What would settle it

Measure the astrometric orbit of the outer system in a future Gaia data release: if the inferred inclination $i_3$ disagrees with the value $\sin i_3\approx0.92$ implied by the joint radial-velocity and LTTE fit, the mass projections are biased. A quicker check is to model the K2 and TESS light curves with spots and re-derive the times of minima; the O-C amplitude $A=0.00632\pm0.00010$ d must survive spot correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that J04+25 (T-Tau0-03027) is a hierarchical triple system: an inner contact eclipsing binary with orbital period $P_{12}=0.364277$ d is accompanied by a third star that contributes about 68\,--\,78 per cent of the total light in the surveyed bands. By extracting radial velocities for all three components from medium-resolution spectra with a two-step binary spectral fit, and by combining the third star's radial-velocity orbit with the light-travel-time signal in eclipse-minimum timings, the authors obtain a consistent outer orbit with $P_3=941.40\pm0.03$ d, $e_3=0.059\pm0.007$, a projected inner-binary mass $M_{12}\sin^3 i_3=1.05\pm0.02\,M_\odot$ and third-star projected mass $M_3\sin^3 i_3=0.90\pm0.02\,M_\odot$. They also find that the inner orbital period is decreasing at $dP/dt=-4.29\times10^{-8}$ d yr$^{-1}$, and they propose that the phase-dependent projected rotational velocity $V\sin i$ of the contact system can be used to estimate the period and minimal mass of contact binaries from spectra alone.

Load-bearing premise

The eclipse-minimum times produced by template matching are assumed to be accurate to about 0.00001 day with no systematic bias from the toy light-curve model, which cannot reproduce the spot-driven O'Connell effect in the K2 and TESS data; if spot activity or template mismatch shifts those times beyond the quoted random errors, the outer period, eccentricity, and mass projections could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The system becomes a rare benchmark in which the outer star outshines the inner binary, so its light must be accounted for in any future modeling of the contact pair.
  • The joint solution predicts an astrometric wobble of the photocenter around the center of mass with an amplitude near 1 mas, which a future Gaia data release should be able to test.
  • The empirical $V\sin i$ relation offers a spectroscopy-only route to estimate the period and minimal mass of contact binaries, usable on large samples from the same survey.
  • The measured period decrease $dP/dt \simeq -4.3\times10^{-8}$ d yr$^{-1}$ gives a concrete rate for evolutionary models of angular-momentum loss in contact binaries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the $V\sin i$ calibration holds for other contact binaries, single-epoch medium-resolution spectra become a crude dynamical probe, turning large spectroscopic surveys into mass estimators without photometric timing campaigns.
  • A future astrometric orbit would convert the projected masses into true masses; comparing those with the contact binary's current period and temperature could test whether the outer companion drove the inner binary into contact through Kozai\,--\,Lidov cycles.
  • The predicted reflected-light signal of order 3 ppm, though tiny, is a concrete observable for ultra-precise space photometry and offers a geometric check that is independent of both spectroscopy and eclipse timing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the discovery and characterization of J042901.09+254144.2 (J04+25) as a hierarchical triple consisting of a contact binary (P12 = 0.364 d) and a brighter, slowly rotating third star on a ~941 d outer orbit. Using LAMOST-MRS spectra, the authors extract radial velocities for all three components with an iterative 'Matryoshka' binary-model technique; using public photometry and a Wilson-Devinney 'toy' model, they measure eclipse times via template matching and jointly fit the third-star RVs and the O-C curve including light-travel-time (LTTE) variations. The resulting solution gives P3 = 941.40 ± 0.03 d, e3 = 0.059 ± 0.007, and projected masses M12 sin^3 i3 = 1.05 ± 0.02 and M3 sin^3 i3 = 0.90 ± 0.02 Msun. The paper also proposes an empirical method for estimating the period and minimal mass of contact binaries from the phase variation of V sin i measured in the spectra.

Significance. If the outer-orbit solution is robust, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of hierarchical triples in which the third star is brighter than the inner contact binary. The combination of an SB1 orbit of the third star with an independent LTTE O-C curve provides a rare consistency check on the wide-orbit parameters, and the two-step spectral decomposition is a sensible approach for medium-resolution, low-S/N data. The consistency between the joint solution, the GLS RV-only period (944 ± 6 d), the APOGEE single RV point, and the SED analysis strengthens the central claim. The proposed V sin i-based mass estimator is promising and could be useful for catalog-scale studies of contact binaries. The main weakness is that the reported timing precision appears far smaller than the acknowledged limitations of the light-curve model, so the formal uncertainties on the outer orbit need to be recalibrated before the quoted precision can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Table B3, Figure 4] The quoted O-C timing uncertainties of ±0.00001 d (~0.9 s) are implausibly small given the authors' explicit statement in §3.2 and Figure 4 that the 'toy' W-D model cannot properly fit the K2 and TESS light curves because of the unmodeled O'Connell effect. The template-matching errors returned by curve_fit account only for photon noise and parameter covariance under the assumed template; they do not account for template distortion by time-variable spot-induced asymmetries, which can shift the apparent minimum by amounts comparable to the fitted LTTE amplitude A = 0.00632 d. Since these O-C points dominate the joint fit through their sheer number and tiny formal errors, a systematic timing bias of even 0.001 d could materially change P3, e3, and the derived mass projections. The authors should calibrate this systematic error, for example by comparing template matching with direct fits to individual minima, by injecting spot-like distortions into synthetic light curves, or by adding a jitter term in the O-C fit, and then re-derive the quoted uncertainties.
  2. [§3.3, Table 6] The joint fit reports P3 = 941.40 ± 0.03 d with an uncertainty that is two orders of magnitude smaller than the RV-only GLS value (P3 = 944.4 ± 5.8 d, Table 4). This dramatic improvement is driven almost entirely by the O-C data and their assumed ±0.00001 d errors. The authors should demonstrate the sensitivity of P3, e3, and the mass projections to plausible systematic O-C shifts (e.g., ±0.001 d) and to alternative relative weightings of the RV and O-C data. Without such a test, the quoted 0.03 d precision is not credible, even though the solution may be correct in a coarser sense.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Figure 6] The residual plots for the O-C and RV fits show visible structure and outliers, but no reduced chi-square or rms residual values are reported; adding these statistics would help the reader judge the fit quality and the effective weight of the O-C points.
  2. [§4, Figure 7] The SED fitting code does not provide uncertainties, and the fitted distance of 619 pc differs from the Gaia DR3 single-star distance of 487 pc; this discrepancy is not discussed and should be addressed, as it may affect the inferred stellar parameters and the angular separation estimate in §5.
  3. [Table 5] The bandpass labels in Table 5 (e.g., 'L1g', 'L1V', 'L1K2', 'L1T43') are not defined in the caption; please add a sentence explaining the notation.
  4. [Appendix C] The authors state that four emcee walkers 'got stuck in wrong periods' and were removed, but they do not report the affected period range or how many samples were discarded; this information should be included for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central triple orbit is derived from independent RV3 and O-C data; only the V sin i consistency check is an in-sample calibration, so circularity is minor.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Eq. 6 and following text]
    "Linear fit is shown in the left panel of Figure 9: |ΔRV|= 13.52± 10.25+( 0.81± 0.04)𝑉 sin𝑖, (6) ... Using the linear relation we get (𝐾1+𝐾2)= 309± 27 km s−1, which together with doubled period provides us 𝑀12 sin3𝑖12= 1.12± 0.30𝑀⊙. This value is consistent with 𝑀12 sin3𝑖3= 1.05± 0.02𝑀⊙ from the joint fit of the third star orbit."

    The linear relation (Eq. 6) is fitted to the same object's measurements of |ΔRV| and V sin i. The method then uses this in-sample calibration to estimate K1+K2 from the V sin i amplitude and derives M12 sin^3 i12, comparing it with the joint-fit value. Because the same RV1,2 data enter both the calibration (|ΔRV|) and the W-D/joint fit, the agreement is an in-sample consistency check rather than an independent prediction. This does not affect the central triple orbit, which rests on RV3 and O-C.

full rationale

The central claim—that J04+25 is a hierarchical triple with P3=941.40±0.03 d—is supported by two largely independent observables: the third-star radial velocities (from LAMOST-MRS spectra) and the O-C times of minima (from template matching on photometry). The template matching uses a W-D 'toy' model to generate light-curve templates, but the measured time shifts are not the model's orbital parameters; they are fitted shifts of the inner-binary eclipse shape. The joint fit of RV3 and O-C is therefore not reducing to its own inputs. The spectral model is borrowed from Kovalev et al. (2024b) but is described in detail in Appendix A, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The only notable in-sample step is the V sin i method of Section 5.2, where a linear relation between |ΔRV| and V sin i is calibrated on J04+25 and then used to derive a mass estimate for the same object, yielding a consistency check rather than a prediction. This is minor and does not bear on the triple orbit. Systematic concerns about O-C timing errors from the unmodeled O'Connell effect are correctness risks, not circularity. Overall circularity is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass estimates (M12,3 sin^3 i3) depend on the fitted LTTE amplitude, mass ratio, and period from the joint fit, which in turn rest on the standard Keplerian LTTE model and on the accuracy of the template-matching O-C measurements. The W-D model supplies the contact-binary mass for the inclination estimate. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • LTTE semi-amplitude A = 0.00632 ± 0.00010 day
    Fitted in the joint RV3+O-C solution; the mass estimate in Eq. 5 scales as A^3, so this is the dominant direct input to the masses.
  • Mass ratio q3 = 1.16 ± 0.01
    Fitted in the joint solution; used to split the total projected mass between the inner binary and the third star.
  • Orbital period of inner binary, P12 = 0.364277 d (fixed in W-D), 0.364275 d (updated ephemeris)
    The inner period is adopted from prior photometry (Devor et al. 2008) and slightly updated from the O-C fit; it sets the scale for phase folding and the parabolic term.
  • Period change rate beta = -4.28e-11 d/cycle^2
    A free parabolic term in the O-C model (Eq. 3) that absorbs any long-term period change; it is degenerate with the LTTE signal over the observed baseline and can bias the recovered outer orbit if mis-modeled.
  • W-D contact binary parameters (q12, i12, Omega, L1, L3) = q12=0.853, i12=85.56 deg, various L1 and L3 per band
    Fitted to K2, TESS, ASAS-SN light curves in the 'toy' W-D model; the derived M1+M2=1.351 M_sun is later used to estimate i3 ~ 67 deg, so systematic errors in this model propagate into the true masses.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The eclipse timing variation of the contact binary is described by a Keplerian light-travel-time effect plus a smooth parabolic period change (Eq. 3).
    This is the standard LTTE model, supported by the independent RV orbit of the third star, but any additional intrinsic period variation (e.g., Applegate mechanism) would be absorbed into the fitted parameters and bias the masses.
  • ad hoc to paper The W-D contact binary model (Mode=3) generates light-curve templates that are accurate enough for measuring times of minima, despite the O'Connell effect in K2/TESS.
    The authors state the toy model cannot properly fit K2 and TESS light curves (Section 3.2); template mismatch could shift the measured times of minima.
  • ad hoc to paper The binary spectral model, with one narrow-lined component and one broad-lined component, cleanly separates the third star from the combined light of the contact binary.
    The separation is successful in practice, but the broad component is an approximation for a rotating contact binary; residual template mismatch is handled by error inflation.
  • domain assumption The empirical relation |ΔRV| = 13.5 + 0.81 V sin i (Eq. 6) from Kovalev et al. (2022) applies to this system and extends to V sin i up to 400 km/s.
    This relation is the basis of the proposed V sin i mass method; it is an empirical fit, not a derived law, and is here calibrated on the same object it is used to interpret.
  • domain assumption Both components in the binary spectral fit have the same metallicity.
    Stated in Section 3.1; reduces the number of free parameters but may bias the light ratio and RVs if the two components differ in metallicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The new compact triple system: discovery of bright third star around contact binary using LAMOST-MRS spectra and photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWZAIU7V

@misc{pith2026250421287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The new compact triple system: discovery of bright third star around contact binary using LAMOST-MRS spectra and photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWZAIU7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21287}
}
abstract

We present a study of the third star orbiting around known contact eclipsing binary J04+25 using spectra from the LAMOST medium-resolution survey (MRS) and publicly available photometry. This is a rare case of a hierarchical triple, where the third star is significantly brighter than the inner contact subsystem. We successfully extracted radial velocities for all three components, using the binary spectral model in two steps. Third star radial velocities have high precision and allow direct fitting of the orbit. The low precision of radial velocity measurements in the contact system is compensated by large number statistics. We employed a template matching technique for light curves to find periodic variation due to the light time travel effect (LTTE) using several photometric datasets. Joint fit of third star radial velocities and LTTE allowed us to get a consistent orbital solution with $P_3=941.40\pm0.03$ day and $e_3=0.059\pm0.007$. We made estimations of the masses $M_{\rm 12,~3}\sin^3{i_3}=1.05\pm0.02,~0.90\pm0.02~M_\odot$ in a wide system and discussed possible determination of an astrometric orbit in the future data release of Gaia. Additionally, we propose an empirical method for measuring a period and minimal mass of contact systems, based on variation of the projected rotational velocity ($V\sin{i}$) from the spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21287 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the spectral fitting for spectrum taken at 𝜙 = 0.25, MJD=59190.669 d. Original spectrum (top) and residual spectrum after subtraction of narrow-lined component (bottom). We zoom into the wavelength range around the magnesium triplet, H𝛼 and in a 70 Å interval in the red arm. The observed spectrum is shown as a gray lines ( with different offsets), the best fits are shown as a green (binary model with zero… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 𝑉 sin 𝑖 of the dim spectral component (orange crosses) and bright spectral component (blue crosses) are shown in top panel as a function of orbital phase, computed using ephemeris from ASAS-SN. Middle panel shows absolute difference of RV fitted from residual spectrum. Bottom panel shows RV, assigned to the both component of the contact system. Horizontal errorbars indicate half time of the exposure. shape, so the f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GLS orbital solution for the third star. Dashed horizontal line shows the systemic velocity. RV measurement from APOGEE DR17 Ab￾durro’uf et al. (2022) is shown as an orange triangle. 3.2 Modelling with W-D We use the Wilson–Devinney program W-D (Wilson & Devinney 1971; Wilson 1979) with PYWD2015 (Güzel & Özdarcan 2020) user interface to make a “toy" model of LCs from TESS, KEPLER and ASAS-SN together withRV1,2 from … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The "toy" model by W-D for K2, ASAS-SN 𝑔 LCs and RV. Top panels show fit of the data, bottom panels show fit residuals. MNRAS 000, 1–11 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots illustrating our template matching algorithm for finding times of minima. Titles indicate duration of time interval, epoch, timeshift and its error. We show it for intervals in TrES, and K2 datasets. scipy.optimise.curve_fit function to find the optimal time shif…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results for joint fit. O-C curve fit using parabola (dashed line) plus Keplerian orbit (solid line). Horizontal axes are shown with units in cycles (bottom) and BMJD (top) for convenience. Only K2, TESS, TrES and SuperWASP data are used in fitting, while others are sho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SED fitting with SEDFit. The top panel shows the observations, including Gaia DR3 BP/RP spectrum (black line), fluxes in Cousins, Gaia, 2MASS and WISE filters. Best fit SED of the whole system (red line), third star (green line), primary (orange line) and secondary (bl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parts of APOGEE DR17 ASPCAP spectrum (gray line) with best-fit model (red line) from SDSS Science Archive Server are shown on the lower panels. Visit spectrum normalized by the second order polynomial is shown on the top panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation of |ΔRV| with 𝑉 sin 𝑖 (left panel). Best sine-fit of 𝑉 sin 𝑖 values of whole contact system by GLS (right panel). D’Angelo C., van Kerkwijk M. H., Rucinski S. M., 2006, AJ, 132, 650 Devor J., Charbonneau D., O’Donovan F. T., Mandushev G., Torres G., 2008, AJ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    K., West A

    Allard F., Homeier D., Freytag B., 2011, in Johns-Krull C., Browning M. K., West A. A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun. p. 91 ( @eprint arXiv 1011.5405 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1011.5405

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.5405 2011

  3. [3]

    Borkovits T., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...695A.209B 695, A209

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453616 2025

  4. [4]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  5. [5]

    W., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520L..10B 520, L10

    Butters O. W., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520L..10B 520, L10

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015655 2010

  6. [6]

    Chen X., Wang S., Deng L., de Grijs R., Yang M., Tian H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249...18C 249, 18

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae 2020

  7. [7]

    Cui X.-Q., et al., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1197C 12, 1197

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  8. [8]

    M., et al., 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products , Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, by R

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products , Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, by R. M. Cutri et al

    work page 2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    R., Mitnyan T., Rappaport S

    Czavalinga D. R., Mitnyan T., Rappaport S. A., Borkovits T., Gagliano R., Omohundro M., Kristiansen M. H. K., P \'a l A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..75C 670, A75

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Huber K

    Czesla S., Schr \"o ter S., Schneider C. P., Huber K. F., Pfeifer F., Andreasen D. T., Zechmeister M., 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages ( @eprint ascl 1906.010 )

    2019

  3. [11]

    H., Rucinski S

    D'Angelo C., van Kerkwijk M. H., Rucinski S. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..650D 132, 650

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Mandushev G., Torres G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/3/850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..850D 135, 850

    Devor J., Charbonneau D., O'Donovan F. T., Mandushev G., Torres G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/3/850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..850D 135, 850

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Foreman-Mackey D., 2016, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00024 , 1, 24

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    doi

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..34G 674, A34

    doi

  9. [17]

    Grupp F., 2004a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040971 , 420, 289

    doi

  10. [18]

    Grupp F., 2004b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040456 , 426, 309

    doi

  11. [19]

    arXiv:2504.11954

    Guo S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250411954G p. arXiv:2504.11954

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    u zel O., \

    G \"u zel O., \"O zdarcan O., 2020, @doi [Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso] 10.31577/caosp.2020.50.2.535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020CoSka..50..535G 50, 535

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    M., B \'o di A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.tmp.2394H

    Hajdu T., Mat \'e csa B., Sallai J. M., B \'o di A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.tmp.2394H

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Halbwachs J.-L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...9H 674, A9

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..241H 156, 241

    Heinze A. N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..241H 156, 241

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    Howell S. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    X., et al., 2020a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..204H 4, 204

    Huang C. X., et al., 2020a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..204H 4, 204

    doi

  18. [26]

    X., et al., 2020b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..206H 4, 206

    Huang C. X., et al., 2020b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..206H 4, 206

    doi

  19. [27]

    Iliji \'c S., 2017, fd3: Spectral disentangling of double-lined spectroscopic binary stars , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1705.012 ( @eprint ascl 1705.012 )

    2017

  20. [28]

    Jayasinghe T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3145J 477, 3145

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, mkounkel/SEDFit: 0.3 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.8076501

    Kounkel, M. 2023, mkounkel/SEDFit: 0.3 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.8076501

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Kovalev M., 2019, PhD thesis, Heidelberg University, @doi 10.11588/heidok.00027411

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Kovalev M., Bergemann M., Ting Y.-S., Rix H.-W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A..54K 628, A54

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Kovalev M., Chen X., Han Z., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517..356K 517, 356

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Kovalev M., Wang S., Chen X., Han Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5454K 519, 5454

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Y., Chen X., Han Z., 2024a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad5f2f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RNAAS...8..175K 8, 175

    Kovalev M. Y., Chen X., Han Z., 2024a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad5f2f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RNAAS...8..175K 8, 175

    doi

  27. [35]

    Kovalev M., Zhou Z., Chen X., Han Z., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..521K 527, 521

    doi

  28. [36]

    arXiv:2005.07210

    Liu C., et al., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200507210L p. arXiv:2005.07210

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P., Qian S

    Liu N. P., Qian S. B., Liao W. P., Huang Y., Yuan Z. L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acd04e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..259L 165, 259

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    Masci F. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    B., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...22M 60, 22

    McLaughlin D. B., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...22M 60, 22

    1924 doi

  32. [40]

    arXiv:1311.0207

    Mikul \'a s ek Z., Chrastina M., Zejda M., Jan \' k J., Yhu L., Qian S., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1311.0207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1311.0207M p. arXiv:1311.0207

    2013 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    O'Connell D. J. K., 1951, Publications of the Riverview College Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1951PRCO....2...85O 2, 85

    1951

  34. [42]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9bf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...39O 155, 39

    Oelkers R. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9bf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...39O 155, 39

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118.1407P 118, 1407

    Pollacco D. L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PASP..118.1407P 118, 1407

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2986P 131, 2986

    Pribulla T., Rucinski S. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2986P 131, 2986

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    A., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...15R 60, 15

    Rossiter R. A., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1086/142825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924ApJ....60...15R 60, 15

    1924 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Pribulla T., van Kerkwijk M

    Rucinski S. M., Pribulla T., van Kerkwijk M. H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134.2353R 134, 2353

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    Shingles L., et al., 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021TNSAN...7....1S 7, 1

    2021

  41. [49]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    Stassun K. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV. p. 29

    2005

  43. [51]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4505T 130, 064505

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4505T 130, 064505

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Henden A

    Watson C. L., Henden A. A., Price A., 2006, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SASS...25...47W 25, 47

    2006

  45. [53]

    E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234.1054W 234, 1054

    Wilson R. E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234.1054W 234, 1054

    1979 doi

  46. [54]

    E., Devinney E

    Wilson R. E., Devinney E. J., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...166..605W 166, 605

    1971 doi

  47. [55]

    Zechmeister M., K \"u rster M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...496..577Z 496, 577

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    Zhang B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..256...14Z 256, 14

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Zhao G., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., Jing Y.-P., Deng L.-C., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12..723Z 12, 723

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.